Done Deal.
Atlantic Accord finally made law
Royal assent was given Wednesday to Bill C-43, the Liberal minority government’s omnibus bill, which included provisions for the new accord.
Bill C-43 passed the Senate Tuesday night.
The deal will mean at least $2.6 billion in additional royalties for the Newfoundland and Labrador treasury, with $2 billion of that to be transferred as an advance.
All told, about 30,000 Newfoundlanders, Labradorians and Canadians wrote over 103,000 letters since this campaign started on December 26th, 2004 – Boxing Day. We’ve already patted ourselves on the back here, so there’s no need to do it again. Now is the time to wrap up this campaign, see what’s next, and move on.
Thanks to all. Enjoy a grand Canada Day! The weather and the outlook from my perch in St. John’s this week could not be better.
– Kevin McCann
66 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I prefer to honour the memory of the NL regiment and their stand at Beaumont Hamel on July 1 1916. I see no reason to celebrate Canada Day. I am a Newfoundlander.
Anyway, the passage of the new offshore arrangement into law is excellent news. But for the efforts of people llike Kevin, it never would have happened. He forced Paul Martin to keep a promise he didn’t want to keep.
Thanks Kevin. We all owe you a blackhorse!
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/1/2005 @ 3:51 pmI agree 110% with Liam, I think we should be paying tribute to our fallen heroes of Beaumont Hamel. It absolutely amazes me that the provincal gov’t has done nothing to remember those who fought for our freedom. It does not however surprise me that the federal gov’t has done nothing. They are to busy with “national unity” keeping everything together and out of the court rooms. I THINK WE HAVE FOUND OUR NEXT CHALLENGE KEVIN, AN ANNUAL MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR THE FALLEN SOLDIERS OF BEAUMONT HAMEL. LET’S ALL BAND TOGETHER AGAIN, AND GET FEDERAL AND PROVINCAL FUNDING. IT’S THE LEAST WE CAN ALL DO TO SAY THANKS FOR OUR FREEDOM.
Comment by Jerry Baker — 7/1/2005 @ 6:59 pmAs a 25-yr retired member of the Canadian Air Force retired here in NL, who has served with hundreds of Newfoundlanders (and the scattered Labradorian WJM), I find it odd that you gentlemen would pick Canada Day for a dig.
Thank you to the both of you for bringing an important battle/periAs a 25-yr retired member of the Canadian Air Force retired here in NL, who has served with hundreds of Newfoundlanders (and the scattered Labradorian, WJM), I find it odd that you gentlemen would pick Canada Day for a dig.
Thank you to the both of you for bringing an important battle/period to the attention of the people here who may not have been aware of it (like me). I won’t pretend to know everything about history in this rich province, and yes, we all need to reflect on history to understand why we have such a wonderful life and to give thanks to the men and women of NL who sacrificed so much to enable us to enjoy our freedom.
We also have to thank the rest of the allied and Canadian forces who fought bravely in WWI and WWII and Korea and covertly in Vietnam and in every other sanctioned conflict whether we believed in the event or not. The soldiers, sailors and air force personnel don’t choose the conflict; they merely follow orders and create a place where Canadians (Newfoundlanders & Labradorians included) can freely pursue their wishes and desires ’til their hearts content…
A more tasteless way to reflect upon the people who gave their lives or the lives of their loved ones for our currently combined nation (whether you personally like it or not) would have been to make your comments on Remembrance Day. I have been pissed off by Ed and his Liberal “suck-up-ism” during much of this campaign but Liam, you just got voted dink of the campaign with Jerry running a close second.
Of the approximately 33% of the Canadian Forces which is generally considered to be from NL, which of them are serving only NL and not Canada? I can tell you from my personal experience, all of those members that I met during my 25 years service are defending a nation. Have you become so lost in your anti-federalism to realize that separation for our country, can and will only mean the annexing of each individual “autonomous ex-Canadian country” as states 52, 53, 54 etc…?
Your lack of vision only usurps your absence of loyalty to what is and only can be, concerning the relationship which now exists between NL and Canada. Your romantic desire to separate and slide back into the squid and cod jigging days is gone. I too think it is a travesty born out of mismanagement by WORLD politicians but living in a techno-colour dream and believing that a resurgence of the NL Separation Federation is an option is enough to make Gerry Boyle himself laugh at you for 22-minutes!
Kevin, please pop into the Guv’nor Pub on Elizabeth Ave on Saturday the 2nd of July, so that I may by you and your guests any beverage you may desire. I’ll be there from 6:00 pm until close. No, I’m not a stalker, I’m the bartender…
Thanks again for your efforts.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/2/2005 @ 2:59 amPlease excuse the editing cafuffle in the first para. It’s 5:30 am and I’ve only been home a short while…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/2/2005 @ 3:02 amSounds like our airforce hero from Fred, has all the answers, maybe he should be in charge of this great nation. As a part of the freedom gained by my grandfathers FREDDY, is the freedom of speech. So live with it!! And you’re no.1 too, but i won’t say what for…..
Comment by Jerry — 7/2/2005 @ 9:45 amNice drop back and kick play Jerry…
Instead of recognizing a hint of the future in our country ya’d rather grumble and fall back on the freedom of speech line. Yes, you are free to say ALMOST anything you so desire.
Doesn’t mean yer right…
You can live with that.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/2/2005 @ 2:10 pmFred, most of my best friends from home serve in the Canadian forces and I have nothing but the utmost respect for them. They represent the long standing tradition of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians serving where they are needed – the tradition that we honour in remembering Beaumont Hamel.
I think I need to respond to these comments:
Fred said:
“Of the approximately 33% of the Canadian Forces which is generally considered to be from NL, which of them are serving only NL and not Canada? ”
How is this relevant to anything I said? Did I in ANY WAY say that these people shouldn’t serve in the forces? That they shouldn’t leave NL? No. Your comments show that you have jumpted to a conclusion and assumption about me and my comments than in no way is supported by the facts.
Fred said:
“I can tell you from my personal experience, all of those members that I met during my 25 years service are defending a nation.”
Actually, they’re probably defending a country called Canada. It’s a federation. Not a “nation,” at least not in the political science definition of the term as I understand it.
Nation: Individuals whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community.
[from Thomson Nelson Poli sci glossary]
[http://polisci.nelson.com/glossary.html]
Fred Said:
“Have you become so lost in your anti-federalism to realize that separation for our country, can and will only mean the annexing of each individual “autonomous ex-Canadian country” as states 52, 53, 54 etc…?”
1. Who said anything about separation? NOT ME. Fred, if you keep making these painful reading mistakes, I suggest you try “Hooked on phonics.”
2. Canada has already co-opted NL quite effectively. But are you suggesting that even if NLers were interested in leaving (which they aren’t) that Canada should turn NL into another Chechnya and annex it with coercion if necessary?
Fred said:
“Your lack of vision only usurps your absence of loyalty to what is and only can be, concerning the relationship which now exists between NL and Canada.”
1. My loyalty is to Newfoundland and Labrador the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As it stands, I actually happen to believe that Canada has a chance to work. But as long as there are people like you, who seem to assume the Archie Bunkeresque “Canada like it or leave it - but you can’t even leave,” nothing will actually change. Canada should exist as a convenient entity that WORKS for all regions. It shouldn’t simply exist for the sake of existence.
2. I see no point in pretending as if Newfoundland ers and Labradorians should celebrate the country which has a federal government that has caused such economic destruction and problems for our province. That isn’t separartism. That’s logical.
Fred Said:
“Your romantic desire to separate and slide back into the squid and cod jigging days is gone.”
What desire? I’m particiapting in forums like this because I honestly do believe there is a chance of making this country work. But the first step is to call a spade a spade – Canada, even post-Accord, isn’t a fair deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.
NL Celebrating Canada is like watching a battered wife celebrate a wedding anniversary. Sometimes abusive spouses get counselling. Sometimes marriages are saved. But the first step is to admit WHAT’S REALLY HAPPENING.
Fred said:
“I too think it is a travesty born out of mismanagement by WORLD politicians but living in a techno-colour dream and believing that a resurgence of the NL Separation Federation is an option is enough to make Gerry Boyle himself laugh at you for 22-minutes!”
Fred, I suggest you respond to the posts that are actually written by me, not the ones you fabricate in your head.
It is possible to believe that NL never should have joined but not believe that it is wise of feasible or likely that NL will ever seperate.
It is possible to believe that Canada is a federation with many members, some of whom are arguably “nations” with national character deserving of aknowledgement without once suggesting that this isn’t also a province in Canada.
All that is required is for you to entertain the possibility that not everybody views Canada as you do. Not everybody sets up as many false dichotomies. It’s not “Status quo or separation.” It’s not “If you say you’re a newfoundlander and not a Canadian you must be a separatist.” That’s simplistic jingoistic tripe best left to the patriotism police in other parts of the world.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/3/2005 @ 4:14 pmYou truly think a word as simple as “nation” requires a poli-science definition rather than a dictionary definition? Especially one that lands right in the middle of Department of NATIONal Defense?
Perhaps the following word will allow you to delve further into your current inability to see what has been on the face of your comments over the past 7-8 months. The PASSWORD is:
*Innuendo - an oblique referring or insinuating|| an instance of such hinting, ALWAYS CRITICAL and usually MALICIOUS (Plus of course the related libel/slander references of which you, as a law student, may or may not be aware.)
Liam, I have been with this blog from the very beginning. I support Newfoundland & Labrador 100% and desire Canadian policy to fairly treat my chosen province while preparing the entire country for the growth and change in the way our global future should work. I will fight for fairness with Kevin, the other non-partisan participants of this blog and even you, Ed, Jerry and WJM, while looking forward to a united “national” future.
It is unlikely that I will see the planet earth as the “nation” you describe in your poli-sci version, in my lifetime. Then again, the poli-sci definition of that word was a bastardized combination of the words - community and nation - designed to stimulate ideas and to provoke critical thinking for some first year students. It wasn’t meant to replace the true definition of the word.
You have often brought interesting CPC biased comments (you call facts) to this blog and yes I recognize that you are doing it to support your province. I too honestly believe that the Liberals have acted unethically with respect to the Sponsorship issues and of course its disrespect of NL agreements since the time of confederation. The Conservatives are also IMHO guilty of the same ethical abuses when they held power.
Yes, we do disagree and agree on many of political fronts but it is less about my ability to read than your desire to twist the words of people with whom you disagree. You usually parse opposing views into tiny segment that you can manipulate because it is the easiest way to turn the true meaning of a persons words against them. You will make a fine lawyer. Your petty attack on my ability to understand and translate your innuendo, which intimates your disgust with Canadian Federal politics, merely solidifies my consideration of your position. Just remember, we agree on many key points but our routes may differ.
Had you chosen to suggest that we not forget the fallen of the Newfoundland Regiment on July 1, 1916 during the battle at Beaumont Hamel as we celebrated Canada Day, rather than disrespecting Canada Day and other Canadians in the same breath, I may have had less to say about your critical thought process. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings and you felt it necessary to retaliate through the parsing of my comments by taking them out of context as a whole.
Good luck in your future endeavors and perhaps we can save on expenses and split on the “Hooked on Phonics” package. Are you starting your own Law Library?
Fred from CBS
* The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/4/2005 @ 12:56 amCanadian Edition © 1988
Hi there
I was looking thru some online journalers I read regularly when they pointed me towards this columist, column… about Canada.. and how he would like to see it burn.. I think everyone should email and let him know what they think…
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/07/01/notes070105.DTL&nl=fix
Comment by Roxanne — 7/4/2005 @ 9:34 amHey Fred;
Have you visited www.pledgecanada.com
It may need a little tweaking but I think it is a worthwhile idea.
Anyway, it’s been a pleasure reading the points and counterpoints by yourself and others over the past 6 months.
And for anyone who is interested, visit the display at The Rooms honouring the Royal Newfoundland Regiment during the Great War. It is obvious that a great deal of care and respect went into the development of the exhibit. It shouldn’t be missed.
Until the next time -
Cheers!
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 7/4/2005 @ 10:18 amThanks Brenda,
I’ve been alive as long as that Pledge and it is the first time I have seen it! I sent an e-mail suggesting it be done up in French too. (Hope I don’t start a sponsorship scandal!)
Thanks for the link and the info on “The Rooms”
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/4/2005 @ 12:26 pmFred Said:
“You truly think a word as simple as “nation” requires a poli-science definition rather than a dictionary definition? Especially one that lands right in the middle of Department of NATIONal Defense?”
Actually, I didn’t until I saw your extremely negative reaction to the idea of my expression of Newfoundland and Labrador Nationalism WITHIN Canada. Nationalism and Separatism are not synonyms. You were simply incorrect and reactinary to assume that one could be exchanged for the other as your post implied.
Fred said:
“Perhaps the following word will allow you to delve further into your current inability to see what has been on the face of your comments over the past 7-8 months. The PASSWORD is:
*Innuendo - an oblique referring or insinuating|| an instance of such hinting, ALWAYS CRITICAL and usually MALICIOUS (Plus of course the related libel/slander references of which you, as a law student, may or may not be aware.)”
1. you have never spoken to me. So you knownothing of what if any libelous comments I have made.
2. What defamtory ocmments have I made? Be specific.
3. What does my tone have to do with anything?
4. What “innuendo” am I getting at?
You really need to learn how to respond to the ACTUAL CONTENT of people’s words in discussion as opposed to what you choose to create or imply yourself.
Freed said:
“Liam, I have been with this blog from the very beginning. I support Newfoundland & Labrador 100% and desire Canadian policy to fairly treat my chosen province while preparing the entire country for the growth and change in the way our global future should work.”
Excellent! good on you!
Fred Said:
” I will fight for fairness with Kevin, the other non-partisan participants of this blog and even you, Ed, Jerry and WJM, while looking forward to a united “national” future.”
Be my guest. Just remember that the position I hold, that Canada can work as a flexible and proud FEDERATION and that it is not a single NATION is perfectly valid and acceptable and that there are many many many others in Newfoundland, parts of Quebec, and parts of the West who agree with me on this.
Whether or not somebody choses, at a prticular point in time to support one political party or another, it is never terribly intellectually sound to simply dismiss or charecterize any individual’s comments as dismissible because they are, in your view “partisan.” It is always better to address their comments.
Fred Said:
“It is unlikely that I will see the planet earth as the “nation” you describe in your poli-sci version, in my lifetime.”
I hope we’re never so politically homogenous or centralized in our gevrnance as to see that happen. It would take as much or more away from our world.
Fred said:
“Then again, the poli-sci definition of that word was a bastardized combination of the words - community and nation - designed to stimulate ideas and to provoke critical thinking for some first year students. It wasn’t meant to replace the true definition of the word.”
Who gets to decide what is the ‘true’ definition of the word?
There are many other deifnitions that support the one I offered. Not every nation has a state. And a federation is not necessarily a nation.
Fred said:
“You have often brought interesting CPC biased comments (you call facts) to this blog and yes I recognize that you are doing it to support your province.”
Which comments are ‘CPC-biased’? - be specific. Otherwise, I take issue with this comment. My comments are, yes , first and foremost supporitng thsi province and very cirtical of the leader who was in power and able to act on this any time in the recent past. But they could just as easily be characterized as NDP-biased comments in most cases. So what benefit is there in your quick fixation-on and description-of my comments as ‘partisan’????
Fred said:
“I too honestly believe that the Liberals have acted unethically with respect to the Sponsorship issues and of course its disrespect of NL agreements since the time of confederation. The Conservatives are also IMHO guilty of the same ethical abuses when they held power.”
I think the Conservatives are guilty of inaction on many files, including fisheries, which they have finall started to correct, but then again, there is no greater intellectual moral high ground to be found in a content-empty ‘ pox on both your houses’…. only through actual discussion of the specifics can we arrive at any determination of the lesserof two (or three) evils.
Fred said:
“Yes, we do disagree and agree on many of political fronts but it is less about my ability to read than your desire to twist the words of people with whom you disagree.”
Which words did I twist? Be specific.
I find it extremely TWISTING of you to assume that because I don’t see nay reason to celebrate Canada Day that I somehow disrespected armed forces and advocated separation and a “return to Cod Jigging” to use your stereotype-laced response to my original post…
Fred said:
” You usually parse opposing views into tiny segment that you can manipulate because it is the easiest way to turn the true meaning of a persons words against them.”
I do respond to many of the posts piece by piece. But its amazing how often people will make the same criticism you just made without citing a specific example of where I ‘lost’ the ‘true meaning’ they were trying to convey. Instead of providing a running commentary on my posting habits, a better response would be to specifically provide that ‘true menaing’ of the specific sentence or paragraph you believe was damaged…
Fred said:
“You will make a fine lawyer.”
how on earth is my personal ocupation in any way relevant to adiscusison about CANADA DAY or THE ACCORD PASSAGE?
Fred said:
“Your petty attack on my ability to understand and translate your innuendo,”
Which part of it was ‘petty’? how was it ‘petty’???????
Fred went on to say:
“which intimates your disgust with Canadian Federal politics, merely solidifies my consideration of your position.”
Why can’t you try responding to the content of my words? As it stands you offer a contradiuctory set of posiitons even as you try to attack me instead of discussing the relevant ideas.
First you claim that I am partisan and CPC-biased, then you claim that i have nothing but contempt for federal politics…. which is it Fred?!?!?
Fred also said:
“Just remember, we agree on many key points but our routes may differ.”
I’m not sure they necessarily do. You have drawn several patently false conclusions about my attitude and preferred ‘route’ already.
Fred also said:
“Had you chosen to suggest that we not forget the fallen of the Newfoundland Regiment on July 1, 1916 during the battle at Beaumont Hamel as we celebrated Canada Day, rather than disrespecting Canada Day and other Canadians in the same breath, I may have had less to say about your critical thought process.”
Fred, you miss the point entirely and still haven’t really addressed my point:
I see reason to honour the armed forces who fought at Beaumont Hamel and their residuary legatees in the current forces.
I see no reaosn to celebrate Canada Day. It is precisely because of the Government of Canada’s policies (which I will gladly discuss in detail) that i feel this way. Canadians can not and should not expect Newfoundlanders or Labradorians or many others in other parts to celebrate the country when the federla government of that country continues to treat entire provinces like dirt, even in how it finally ocnedes to motherhood issues such as the accord.
It doesn’t make me a separatist. I think it simple makes me react realistically to the situation I see before me.
Fred also said:
“I’m sorry I hurt your feelings and you felt it necessary to retaliate through the parsing of my comments by taking them out of context as a whole.”
As a whole, I found not much of a differnet context. You made incorrect assumptions about me. you called me childish names. And you used false definitions to further your assertions about me and my views on Canada Day. What part of that isn’t accurate and why?
In the future, I advise to not be so quick to make assumptions about NL nationalism and its meaning or about critics of Canada and Canada day. Leave the vilifation of those with different views of the federation to Jean Chretien and company. (and, o be fair, Harper, as of late with the recent comments re BQ hasn’t helped matters either)….
Not everybody celebrates Canada Day. If you think we all should, explain why. This time around, try being less emotional and focus less on the name calling. I’ll try to be more civil right after my dink award arrives.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/4/2005 @ 2:04 pmKevin
Comment by Cyril — 7/4/2005 @ 2:23 pmFor the information of your readers there is a memorial church service held annualy in Cowhead on the northern peninsula every July 1st in memory of those brave men who fought and died at Beaumont Hamel. Also this year at the theatre fsstival there in cowhead there is aplay about Tommy Ricketts (Victoria Cross winner)and his bravery serving with the Royal Nfld. regiment in WW I .
Roxanne,
Re-read the column. Actually, read the column in its entirety for the first time. The columnist does not want to see Canada “burn". This is an indictment of the far right, not of Canada.
Comment by Kevin — 7/5/2005 @ 8:14 amLiam,
This’ll be short, in hope to shorten your response.
Nation - Semantics, I give you win.
Innuendo - I did not say that YOU made libelous references, I alluded only to libel as there remained the legal defenitions besides the 2 I provided from the dictionary.
Liam said, “Who gets to decide what is the ‘true’ definition of the word?”
Well that about sums it up. I can’t argue with you anymore because you just opened the crux of the issue. What you don’t want to agree with you simply shred with contradiction based on your “true” definitions of words. Arrrgh!
I gotta go but in closing, if “[you] find it amazing how often people will make the same criticism [I] just made without citing a specific example of where [you] ‘lost’ the ‘true meaning’ [we] were trying to convey” then maybe you should revisit your grammatical approach rather than telling everybody else that THEY ARE wrong…
There ya go and not one nasty or childish name. I must admit that was inappropriate and wrong of me. I am sorry. I think Brenda S. is STILL waiting on an apology from you…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/5/2005 @ 2:07 pmFred, if you had followed Belinda Stronach’s parliamentary record in the days leading up to her move, you’d know that she did, in every sense of teh word sell out ther supposed principles for short term political gain. That earns Stronach the same designation I gave Keith Martin, Diane St. Jacques, Bill Matthews, and Scott Brison, to name just a few…. political whore.
In teh end Fred, you can try the acrobatics of focus on gramar, you can try the acrobatics of trying to find other meanings of words to suit your own purposes. It doesn’t change the fact that you reacted in a ridiculous way and proceeded to write statements where you misrepresented my position. You jumped to the conclusion that since I saw no reason to celebrate Canada Day and since I considered myself a Newfoundlander first and foremost, I must advocate some immediate seperation from Canada. This was based on the worst logic since Charlie Brown tried to kick the football away from Lucy for the 12000th time….
You had nothing to base your original remarks onexcept my consistent criticism of the federal government. I’ve got news for you Ed, this country is F@#$ked up. And it won’t get any better if critics from Alberta, Quebec OR Newfoundland and Labrador are accused of being traiterous separatists every time they get critical of teh country where they live.
I remember the episode of “All in teh Family” when Archie Bunker said “America, like it or lump it,” well, there were a few! As funny as it was, it is amazing how many ‘Canadian nationalists’ snap so hard at folks like myself who believe in a very different (but equally valid) vision of how the Canadian federation should work.
There is no contradiction between saying “Canada, if it choses to respect the provinces, decentralize, and respect provincial rights and a true federal structure, can work” and “I’m a Newfoundlander first.”
I think it’s too bad more residents of other provinces weren’t like it. And for the record, If you look at the 2003 opinion survey completed for the NL Royal Commission on our Place in Canada, (conducted by Ryan Research) you’ll find that there are a lot of people who agree with me. 72% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians see themselves as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first. A Majority continue to believe that the government of Canada is not doing its job or respecting us as a province.
I think the very existence of this forum is evidence enough of that!
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/5/2005 @ 8:52 pmLiam,
I (Fred) said nothing about Belinda Stronach. Ed (Ed H) asked you months ago to apologize to BRENDA S. another blogger in this forum who said that she found YOUR remarks offensive about her. (BRENDA S the blogger not Belinda Stronach the politician.) I understand the use of the word in the context and didn’t really see anything wrong with it, personally.
On the other hand in a community or at a place of employment, when some asks you not to do or say something because THEY find it offensive, it doesn’t matter if YOU don’t find it offensive or I don’t find it offensive. Any person who brought it to your attention deserves your (or the communitys’/place of employments’) courtesy not to be exposed to something they have identified as offensive. A continuation of the behaviour (or word) which has been requested to be modified or stopped can (and often will) be viewed as harassment. Yes, anybody who doesn’t want to hear your freedom of speech in a blog can choose to leave. In the fairdeal community, we are trying (I think) to respect everybody. I let you and Jerry down by getting childish. I’m trying to make up for it now.
I apologized to you (LIAM) in my last post. You have taken that as opportunity to continue complaining about what I (Fred, not Ed) last posted. I’m still sorry I misunderstood your representation of yourself as a Canadian.
I had to revisit my first post, because while you feel that I ear-marked you personally as a separatist, I was more generally passing comment about what I believe would happen to Canada and its provinces if a separation agenda, by any province, was attained. The stereo-type-casting of which you accused me, was an accident where I slipped what I was trying to get across. What I meant to get across was that I believe the cessation of all drag fishing (i.e. ripping up the food supplies of the sea for the sea, killing, maiming or catching of fish, etc.) must happen before Mother Nature can repair the damage, if that is at all possible. This directly collides with other posts/points you have made regarding a co-management or some such arrangement between Canada and NL. This will not work in my opinion based on the studies that I have read. I believe the only possibility for recovery is the radical (but necessary) step of convincing the collection of world fishers (of the destroyed areas) to cease all operations. Starting a world organization now on the areas that are not yet over-fished would be a good start. Then a world co-management function with quotas in 10-15 years may save the all but lost fisheries. Freezer boats must be disassembled and banned. We will lose natural habitat ocean fish if we just keep gutting what is out of our sight.
Once again, I am sorry about the smaller parts of my message, which you chose to take as the larger part of my message. I was not clear about the parts that I considered ancillary to your dig at Canada Day and those who are proud Newfoundlanders Labradorians as well as Canadians. I antagonized you, you felt attacked and you chose to retaliate by focusing tightly on the points you took most personally. Those points were my opinionated forecasts that were meant to reflect current world politics and natural science but I was lax in my presentation of those points.
You make another valuable post regarding the perspective of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were asked a pollster like question to arrive at the response that was sought after. I agree with the comment that I too am a Newfoundlander and Labradorian first (now that I’m settled here). I hope that I can be a strong community member and an unofficial provincial representative to encourage Canadian federal politicians (and the NL politicians too) to act in the best interest of NL while achieving goals that empower everyone in the Canada to get along a little better for equal benefit across our country and eventually the world. Currently, however, John Efford and his offices are ignoring my e-mails, so I too agree completely with your last 5 sentences.
Lastly, I must also give you credit for avoiding or misunderstanding the many relevant points I did raise, coupled with your ability to nail those of my less than perfectly chosen words. And while you can choose to continue to scream foul at me, I now retire from this round. In returning to the many months of posts, I have finally remembered that you are rarely wrong, and you do not often (if ever) choose to recant anything. So, I bid you farewell.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/6/2005 @ 5:17 amMy apologies for the mistake on that one. My eyesight must be going.
On some other points:
“On the other hand in a community or at a place of employment, when some asks you not to do or say something because THEY find it offensive, it doesn’t matter if YOU don’t find it offensive or I don’t find it offensive. Any person who brought it to your attention deserves your (or the communitys’/place of employments’) courtesy not to be exposed to something they have identified as offensive.”
Ed gan get as offended as he wants on behalf of Brenda. Ed still isn’t Brenda. Besides, you’re starting to sound like one of those government Political correctness videos…lol
Fred said:
“I apologized to you (LIAM) in my last post. You have taken that as opportunity to continue complaining about what I (Fred, not Ed) last posted. I’m still sorry I misunderstood your representation of yourself as a Canadian.”
Well taken good sir.
As for this:
“. . .In returning to the many months of posts, I have finally remembered that you are rarely wrong, and you do not often (if ever) choose to recant anything. So, I bid you farewell.”
You seem to be under the impression that we must reach a certain quota of recants or something. I tend to recant when I believe I have done something wrong or made some other mistake.
Farewell to you sir. Know that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and owmen of the armed forces. Many of the guys I played minor hockey with and many of my high school classmates now serve.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/6/2005 @ 12:41 pmI just wanted to make a comment towards our air force friend. I myself served with the Canadian Air Force for five years, the last two stationed at third wing, baggotville. I have had the pleasure to serve with some of the greatest men and women that our forces has. Like the rest of the country the military is not in good shape. I would know, since I was flying the CL-30 from 1952-1960. Thats the Canadair CT-133 Or T-33 Silverstar Mk-3. Originally a trainer, its last job was EWF, CF-18 Radar Assist, AWACS. Finally they retired all but four of them in 2002. The remaining four are stationed at two wing cold lake. Now while I was stationed in Baggotville, Quebec, I was told I wasn’t a Canadian by the Quebeccers. It didn’t bother me, I just replied that I am a Newfoundlander. The point is no matter where we go we are and always will be Newfoundlanders. I was honored to serve for the CAF, and for Canada. If I could do it again I would in a heart beat.
Leftenant MacLeod
Comment by Leftenant MacLeod — 7/6/2005 @ 5:02 pm3rd wing, fighter support Sqdn 439.
Tiger, tiger, tiger!
I left Baden-Soelingen in 1993 when the Canadian government chose to abandon its representation of our country in Germany. It was as sad a day for our German friends as it was for Canadian military members who were no longer provided a chance to benefit from an international exchange of culture and understanding.
It was also a tactical and practial loss as regards the worlds efforts and position against international terrorism. Canadian politicians demonstrated shortsightedness and gave up Canadas’ connection to Europe and our only out of Canada postings so as to save a few more dollars. It was a bad decision and our country will suffer for this ineffective choice!
As strong as our units are in the Canadian military, its no wonder that they are so angry by the choices of its leaders (or should I say government). I had to leave. We were so under staffed and under supported/represented, having so many “yes people” ready to “satisfy” our country’s committments that I could no longer stomach my professions’ weaknesses. I submitted extensive documents designed to re-enforce my country’s Forces and believe it or not I have seen corrective action initiated based upon my recommendations. I was embarassed but now I see the recovery of our forces commencing because so many of us had to leave to get their attention.
I will protect our military people whenever possible.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/7/2005 @ 1:41 amUnderstaffed is an understatement. There’s more planes then pilots since the majority leave to go commercial as soon as they can. Also there is still alot of antiques, the majority in Ontario, Voodos and Starfighters. (CFB Mountainview) They are waiting to be destroyed for the last umpneen years. However they are now recieving new hawk trainer jets to replace the CT-114 Tutors. I recently ran into a fellow from Australia that was getting a ride from Toronto to CFB Cold Lake in one. I dont know if you remember the two CF-100 canucks, a Mk-4 and a Mk-5, both of which are still in Cold Lake. we have lots of antiques thats for sure. The one thing that really bugs me is the french rule. If you don’t speak french you dont go past Leftenant in the air force. Similar rule applies to navy and land forces. I would like to see more support not only for our forces of today but for our veterans. They all deserve alot more credit then they have been recieving. Its past time.
Comment by Leftenant MacLeod — 7/7/2005 @ 7:56 amFormer Newfoundland premier Frank Duff Moores died of liver cancer Sunday, in a hospital in Perth, Ontario. He was 72. Personally, I consider Frank to be one of our greater premiers. His accomplishments too often go overlooked – delegation to cabinet ministers in sharp contrast with his predecessor, new fairer rules on liquor licensing and mineral leases, conflict of interest laws, and other matters. His govt also led the first serious charge on several provincial rights
issues relating to fisheries and oil and gas.
Regardless of your leanings, few would challenge or doubt his commitment to making Newfoundland and Labrador a better place.
Eternal Rest Grant unto him and let the perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.
Premier’s statement:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2005/exec/0710n01.htm
news and heritage links:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1121012759096_8/?hub=TopStor\
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/10/2005 @ 8:34 pm\
ies
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/prov_pol.html
http://frank-moores.biography.ms/
http://www.theindependent.ca/article.asp?AID=447&ATID=2
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/apology.html
In reference to the passing of former premier Frank Moores, credit must be given to him for a number of accomplishments.
Liam has touched on a few but also add to the list the introduction of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Tender Act. These are two examples of the democratization of the province under Premier Moores.
I believe his premiership has been underestimated but I do hope that will change with the publication of his biography by Janice Wells due out in the Fall of 2006.
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 7/14/2005 @ 10:21 amKevin,
This site has helped in some great causes over the past several months. Maybe we could use it to push the feds for the answers to some nagging questions like:
Why is the federal government planning to announce a 6 week food fishery with the purchase of tags in parts of Newfoundland while allowing an 11 month tag free fishery in Nova Scotia?
Why has the federal government all but abandoned 5 Wing Goose when the big land offers such vast training opportunities? Foreign military groups have seen the potential for years and the base is in such a strategically important location on the east coast, why is it dying?
Why would the federal government say they wanted to focus on commercially viable species rather than cod in an attempt to qualify canceling funding for the only independent inshore cod researcher in the province? Isn’t it true that the reason cod is not commercially viable is because a lack of government science led to its decline? Couldn’t good science help it become economically viable one day?
Why are people in Newfoundland and Labrador the highest taxed, lowest income and most under employed people in Canada?
Why does Newfoundland and Labrador provide about 10% of Canada’s armed services personnel but has practically no military presence in the province?
Why are there less and less federal government jobs in the province year after year after year?
Comment by Web Talk - Newfoundland and Labrador — 7/14/2005 @ 10:37 amI agree.
Of particular interest, IMHO,
- The Future of 5 Wing Goose Bay – will the federal minister give us a written promise?
- Joint management of the fisheries – give the province a meaningful and entrenched say/veto over quotas in waters adjacent to NL. Prov NDP, Liberal and PCers all agreed with local industry and labour on that one since the 1980s and most recently in the 2003 push.
- NAFO has failed. I noticed on VOCM website that Fisheries Minister Trevor Tailor has renewed the call for Custodial management on the grand banks. International law is mostly about state practice and custom. It’s time for Canada to get up off its arse and listen to the demands of both Mr. Taylor and Gerry Reid – they are right to be asking for custodial management. It can and should be done.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/14/2005 @ 7:00 pmWebtalk is sorely misinformed!
10% would be the percentage if each province provided 1 tenth of the people in the Canadian Forces from each provine without including the territories.
If you break it down to the people who serve our country, it is closer to 30% Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who serve our country, 30% Quebecers and 30% of the rest of our country!
I’m from Ontario, originally, and I find it ghastly that our government doesn’t compensate any the provinces that provide a higher percentage of people to protect our country based upon provincial volunteers!
Wake up Paul! Our Forces [and especially those in NL and on the east coast] are disappearing through attrition and apathy!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/14/2005 @ 9:37 pmRe Fred and the July 1st commentary:
Fred from Ontario/NL wrote “Thank you to the both of you for bringing an important battle/period to the attention of the people here who may not have been aware of it (like me). I won’t pretend to know everything about history in this rich province, and yes, we all need to reflect on history to understand why we have such a wonderful life and to give thanks to the men and women of NL who sacrificed so much to enable us to enjoy our freedom.”
The problem with Fred is that he does not know what Beaumont Hamel means to NL. It leaves me sad to hear him dismiss it as another battle.
Re: July 1st celebrations. Well, I live in Ottawa and I can tell you that it is the most over-rated celebration I have ever seen. Here in Ottawa the 20-somethings use it as an excuse to get drunk and the “politically correct” celebration on the Hill is just so phony. Most people in Ottawa escape if they can to their “cottages” i.e., cabins. What a country!
I am so thankful to the many NLs who fought (and continue to do so) and have died for our country. But please spare me from the July 1st “celebration". Quebec does not celebrate and it is extremely understandable for those in know about Beaumont Hamel that NL does not “celebrate” either.
Thanks.
Comment by Anne — 7/18/2005 @ 11:53 amAnne from Ottawa
The problem with Fred is that he identifies ANY waste of life as just that - a waste of life.
It was with honour that Veterans (deceased and living) of any war served. From the Allied forces of the World to the Dominion of Newfoundland and Canada. In this the Year of the Veteran, perhaps you should reflect on a little bit more than slaying me as your own personal dragon. I neither disrespected nor did I dismiss the men who died at Beaumont Hamel.
In no way did I dismiss ANYTHING! I was not being flippant. I was not being facetious. I sincerely thanked Liam for bringing this battle to my attention. (Even if I took offence to the style and timing of his remarks.) In no way was I being disrespectful to the memory of those who fought valiantly at Beaumont Hamel. I researched the battle and the history surrounding the tragic loses. It saddens me, provides me with great strength of resolve and reminds me to forewarn my children that war is not a glorious encounter. As a legacy it provides to us a model on how to behave if we are required as a country to defend ourselves savagely and without remorse when required to do so. It is not something anybody wants to do nor is it anything anybody desires to be proud about. It is the men and women of our communities who will lay down their lives to protect our quality of life.
Anne, I served my country and received 3 medals with many Newfoundlanders and a few Labradorians for over 25 years across Canada and around the world. Did you miss those parts of my past comments intentionally when you chose to insult me?
Instead of belittling yourself and Quebec, by empathizing with them, and casting stones at someone who has served Canada and chose to retire in Newfoundland where he has many friends and much family, why not join up yourself. There are no longer any age restrictions and the Canadian Forces are an equal opportunity employer…
I’m sorry if you think I dismissed anything to do with the deaths of Newfoundlanders or anybody else for that matter. I do not dismiss the death of anyone as an individual or a group fighting for the defense of the collective ideas and ideals of my country. The same ones to which I swore to protect when I joined.
Geez, I wish I had more time…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/18/2005 @ 2:59 pmI fail to see how empathizing with Quebec belittles anyone. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Quebec and the grievances voiced there. . . Just as I have respect for the grievances voiced by many academics and busienss leaders (and the premier) in Alberta and the West.
There is NO conflict between not celebrating Canada day and respecting all our armed forces. I respect my fellow Newfoundlanders (many close friends of mine) who serve today. But They know (and I know) that they are defending my right to democracy and free speech. And that free speech includes my right to be critical of a federation and the government of Canada that continues to pilfer this province.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/19/2005 @ 6:58 amThey need lawyers in the Forces too…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/19/2005 @ 4:12 pmQuebec can take care of itself, I lived there for 4 and a half years and I support much of what they are demanding just as I support much of what balanced critical thinking NL’ers are demanding.
I heard Gus Etch. on talk radio last night and he repeated yet again how our governments (federal and provincial) are still not fighting the overfishers from other countries. Our governments must seek out global support to stop the fishing so that the destroyed fishing grounds can have a hope in hell of repairing themselves. Mother Nature’s a wonderful thing if she can be left alone to heal the damage caused by such disgusting vessels as freezer trawlers (or should they be called Grand Bank rapists?)!
And by the way, I asked Anne not to belittle Quebec, not the other way around…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/21/2005 @ 2:14 amCanada’s federal government is set on staying on the NAFO merry-go-round. It’s nonsense. Custodial management is long overdue.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/21/2005 @ 5:42 pmFred, I wrote: “Quebec does not celebrate and it is extremely understandable for those who know about Beaumont Hamel that NL does not “celebrate” either.” Now please tell me where I belittled Quebec or the brave members of the Armed Forces for that matter.
I love Quebec. I lived there half my life and have relatives there. Next to NL, it is the place I am most at home (chez moi).
I also have relatives in the Armed Forces and appreciate everything they are doing for Canada. That does not mean that I think I should “celebrate” Canada Day. One does not necessarily follow the other.
Anyway, to summarize “I love Quebec” and I love the men and women in the Armed Forces. I think Canada Day is a phony celebration. Spend Canada Day in Ottawa and you will understand what I mean.
Thank you.
Anne
Comment by Anne — 7/22/2005 @ 9:31 amOttawa, Ontario
It’s up to us all to make Canada Day of the same importance as Canada. Celebrate or don’t celebrate, modify your personal celebration to be content with Canada as a country. I mean if you are living in Ottawa, love Quebec and protect at all cost the memory of Newfoundlanders and Canadian servicepeople, I’m guessing that you too are Canadian.
With all its faults and dysfunctional politicians, provinces and yes country-people/bloggers, it is still the best damn country in the world. Believe it or not I’m not a hardcore flag waver but trying to bring the world and all mankind together starts with bring your country together. Being petty about young adults boozing to much coupled with the arrogance and pageantry of “official” ceremonies up on Parliament Hill doesn’t mean the Day or its meaning deserve disrespect.
Whatever, I guess I can’t convince you or Liam of anything. It is not in either of you to admit that anybody else makes valid points. You only keep spewing your own points.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/22/2005 @ 12:36 pmFred, I think your comments show considerable pettiness. Stop assuming you can “diagnose” anyone who disagrees with you as people who don’t “admit that anybody else makes valid points.” Attacking the people who dare disagree with you shows a weakness in your chosen method of discussion.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “validity,” in this case, but I’ll “admit” that you’ve made a good point when you make one, not before. And I have often and always will be willing to concede a point when somebody makes a good argument refuting what I have stated. You can choose to ignore that or not believe that . . . as you obviously have chosen to do…
Newsflash Fred: you saying “Canada is the greatest country in the world” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true or that we agree. You saying “everyone should celebrate Canada day” doesn’t mean we all agree with you. Repeat it all you want. Make a chant. Cut an album. Write a coffee table book. It changes nothing.
Canada Day celebrates a federation with a federal government that has unfairly pilfered many provinces and made decisions that are downright deplorable and unexcuseable. With that in mind, you’ll forgive me if I find your call for us to put these very serious considerations aside as a tad jingoistic.
I look forward to seeing how many lovely unsupported conclusions you’ll make about me based on this post. You’ve made some laughable ones in this thread already.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/23/2005 @ 12:16 pmDid you say anything relevant that time?
Ummm, nope…
Try again. You should reread some of my “unsupported conclusions” before you attempt to get cute with your journalistic writing abilities. Just because you quote crap doesn’t mean I wrote it, either. And just because YOU think I have made “laughable [conclusions]” doesn’t mean you’re correct either.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/25/2005 @ 12:39 amYou’ve already apologized for some of your conclusions you made about me. I’m mor ethan willing to admit that I may be incorrect. But that’s best determiend through exchange of empirical evidence and assertions supported by such evidence. It’s not well established with this garbage:
“I guess I can’t convince you or Liam of anything. It is not in either of you to admit that anybody else makes valid points. You only keep spewing your own points.”
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 7/25/2005 @ 5:50 pmSee ya…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 7/25/2005 @ 10:39 pmFred wrote: “Being petty about young adults boozing to much coupled with the arrogance and pageantry of “official” ceremonies up on Parliament Hill doesn’t mean the Day or its meaning deserve disrespect.”
Fred, You missed my whole point. The people showing disrespect on Canada Day in Ottawa are not people like me, but those who think so little of Canada that they use it as an excuse for drunken disorderless. Believe me, it is not a pretty sight on Canada Day in Ottawa. That’s why most people who can, do escape from Ottawa on Canada Day.
And the phony show of patriotism on the Hill is just as disrespectful to Canada. Love of country should be in your heart all year long; it does not need a phony display with flag waving where the Prime Minister and a few elitist politicans try to show how wonderful they are at our expense.
Now this is just my opinion and I certainly hope that that is what we love about Canada, its free speech.
Thanks,
Comment by Anne — 8/4/2005 @ 9:54 amAnne from Ottawa
Anne you started this whole exchange with:
“The problem with Fred is that he does not know what Beaumont Hamel means to NL. It leaves me sad to hear him dismiss it as another battle.”
Therefore, I became aggressive. And remember, I didn’t dismiss anything. Also, I’m done talking with you about Canada Day and I’m not overly interested in sharing war stories or historical accounts either.
The narrowing that has taken place over these issues seems to indicate that people who die (or have died) fighting battles to provide freedom in our world, country and province have different categories on this blog page. I say bollocks to that and so do those people who are serving, have served or died serving.
You can’t honestly believe that the men who died at Beaumont Hamel would say, “Crap, if I had have know that they were just gonna end up part of Canada, I wouldn’t have bothered signing up to be an allied soldier!” Please tell me, that’s not what this argument is boiling down to, is it?
Anyways, like I said to the other one (that I’m not naming this time) b’bye…
Fred from CBS
PS Anne, read what I wrote with MY free speech. It seems that your ‘last post’ was a reflection or compilation of my previous posts.
Comment by Fred Harris — 8/5/2005 @ 10:15 pmGeeze this thread sure has gotten rough. I just wanted to say that I heard from the DND grapevine that 5 wing goosebay is supposed to be getting the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle operations and support unit. If that is the case it would help out goose a little bit. I really hope it doesn’t go the way usaf base harmond did. Doesn’t make sense to me that the longest runway in the country sits unused in Stephenville. As for military strength I too think it makes no sense that a large number of forces personelle are from Nfld and Labrador yet there is barely any presence of the armed forces in Nfld and Labrador. Even Gander seems to have very little. 5 Wing Goosebay used to be a bustling place but now I’m told its pretty quiet. I hope they do something to save the base.
Comment by Leftenant MacLeod — 8/10/2005 @ 8:43 pm“Doesn’t make sense to me that the longest runway in the country sits unused in Stephenville.”
For starters, the longest runway in the country isn’t in Stephenville. S’ville’s main runway is 10,000 feet. That’s just one of seven 10,000-footers in Canada, and there are ten runways that are longer, including Goose Bay’s main strip (11,000, one of five tied for fifth-longest in Canada) and Gander’s main (10,500).
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Stephenville has the longest runway in Canada?
Comment by WJM — 8/15/2005 @ 2:43 pmstephenville’s isn’t the longest, but it could be used:P i think that town should perhaps let the U.S
while the U.S for some strange reason pays around 60/70 cents a L, so unfair 
not that canadas the only country suffering, other countrys are also of course.
military manage the airport, let them use it, let them build some barracks & have their troops hang around like they used too & prep for overseas missions (these days), stephenville is close to dieing anyway, with the looming closure of abitibi-consolidated paper mill there, yey for the atlantic accord.. we can fix our highways, & stjohns might be a better place to live for a little while longer … woo hoo, makes no diff when NL lets smaller areas die. the small areas are where our young talent stems from.. the worlds going crazy folks, thank G W Bush. next year i hope everyone enjoys the 1.50+ gas prices. might hit that this winter
PEOPLE NEED TO SPEAK OUT, THREATEN THEIR OWN GOVERMENT & TELL THEM FIX THIS MESS, OR THE PEOPLE WILL OVERTHROW THE GOVERMENT.
because, they suck at what they do, i would think this is obvious
Comment by john doe — 8/15/2005 @ 9:06 pm“i think that town should perhaps let the U.S
military manage the airport, let them use it, let them build some barracks & have their troops hang around like they used too & prep for overseas missions (these days),”
Even if Stephenville “let them", Stephenville doesn’t have defence relations with other countries. But I’ll play along: why would the US even be interested in this proposition, when they are alread in the middle of closing dozens of bases on US soil and overseas?
Comment by WJM — 8/16/2005 @ 9:14 amKevin, I think our next hurdle and conflict to tackle are the barbarians of Quebec. Re: The land claims Quebec has made on Labrador.
When in your life time have you ever heard of one province envading another province and the the spinless feds in Ottawa not doing anything about it? If this happened in the French quarterly down in New Orleans I wounder what Washington would do. There’s a big problem in this country and it’s the French. If they left Canada this country would be a alot better off.
You know if Newfoundlander & Labrador don’t start acting on separation there’ll be no place for us to live. We need to get our minds together and follow the ways of the people of Iceland and get back our independence. I watched the documentary Hard Rock & Water produced by Morag productions, a local production company and it gave a little insight to how Newfoundland could have been if we were never conned into confederation. At the end of the documentary my only words were “what a shame”
If Newfoundlanders & Labradorians think for one second that Ontario and Quebec will soon take us by the hand and lead us down the garden path they all should pull their heads out of the sand. The Barbarians only lead us down a cold and dark path and had their way with us by lying and stealing and treating the people of Newfoundland & Labrador like crap. It’s time to leave this banana republic of a country, and become our own nation again.
Comment by Frank H — 8/16/2005 @ 1:25 pm“Kevin, I think our next hurdle and conflict to tackle are the barbarians of Quebec. Re: The land claims Quebec has made on Labrador.”
Quebec’s “land claims” in Labrador are non-existent.
If anyone in Newfoundland read French, I could prove it.
“When in your life time have you ever heard of one province envading another province”
NL and NS, Quebec and NB, Quebec and Ontario, and Ontario and MB have all had border disputes. All have been settled.
“and the the spinless feds in Ottawa not doing anything about it?”
How do you suppose the federal government can stop some civil servants in Quebec from drawing imaginary maps? By going to war against the Quebec map thing, you’d be giving it far more credibility than it deserves.
But while you’re pissed off about maps, write Danny Williams and ask him what our province’s map policy is when it comes to the portrayal of Labrador.
If Quebec’s stupid maps have a legal impact, then what about our own province’s maps which reduce Labrador or omit it altogether?
“There’s a big problem in this country and it’s the French. If they left Canada this country would be a alot better off.”
“The French” were here before the English! This kind of obnoxious prejudice has NO PLACE in Canada.
“You know if Newfoundlander & Labrador don’t start acting on separation”
Newfoundland can separate from Canada all it wants, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that Labrador would want to be a part of your little empire.
“I watched the documentary Hard Rock & Water produced by Morag productions, a local production company and it gave a little insight to how Newfoundland could have been if we were never conned into confederation.”
What would be different?
“It’s time to leave this banana republic of a country, and become our own nation again.”
Labrador was never part of your nation. Newfoundlanders never gave Labradorians their “national” vote.
Kevin, if you want a new campaign, how about “Fair deal for Labrador"? Danny Williams has already broken his promise that Labrador would be the primary beneficiary of the Lower Churchill development. He broke it by not demanding Labrador benefits in his call for proposals.
How about it?
Comment by WJM — 8/16/2005 @ 4:51 pm“Quebec’s “land claims” in Labrador are non-existent.”
WMJ, you aren’t at all current so prove it.
“NL and NS, Quebec and NB, Quebec and Ontario, and Ontario and MB have all had border disputes. All have been settled.”
I’m talkin recently not eons ago.
“How do you suppose the federal government can stop some civil servants in Quebec from drawing imaginary maps? By going to war against the Quebec map thing, you’d be giving it far more credibility than it deserves.”
You really are a little behind the times. These maps have been issued by the provincial government of Quebec.
“But while you’re pissed off about maps, write Danny Williams and ask him what our province’s map policy is when it comes to the portrayal of Labrador.”
Ever since our Primere has taken office you have done nothing but rake him over the coals with that stinkin aditude of yours. What’s wrong are afraid he’s doing something right for the province. He’s done good so far for our region of Labrador, alot more than he done for the west coast of Newfoundland but ya don’t hear me complaining.
“If Quebec’s stupid maps have a legal impact, then what about our own province’s maps which reduce Labrador or omit it altogether?”
Yeah your right, Quebecs maps do reduce Labrador and omit it altogether….you are from Quebec aren’t you?
““The French” were here before the English! This kind of obnoxious prejudice has NO PLACE in Canada.”
Typical mainlander, omitting the native people again. As for Newfoundland, our people were here alot longer than the french. As a matter of fact there’s little presence of french here on the island…thank god
“Newfoundland can separate from Canada all it wants, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that Labrador would want to be a part of your little empire.”
You speak for the people of Labrador?
“What would be different?”
The presence of prosperity and the absence of abuse.
“Labrador was never part of your nation. Newfoundlanders never gave Labradorians their “national” vote.”
You spread propaganda!
“Kevin, if you want a new campaign, how about “Fair deal for Labrador"? Danny Williams has already broken his promise that Labrador would be the primary beneficiary of the Lower Churchill development. He broke it by not demanding Labrador benefits in his call for proposals.”
This issue hasn’t even been discussed yet, again more propaganda on your part
Oh by the way WMJ are you the Micheal Johansan that rights the columns in The Telegram and the Downhomer? If so no wonder I discontinued my subscription.
Comment by Frank H — 8/17/2005 @ 12:14 am“WMJ, you aren’t at all current so prove it.”
Go read the report of the Quebec government’s Dorion Commission, from the early 1970s, which drove a stake through the heart of any supposed claim Quebec has on Labrador.
“I’m talkin recently not eons ago.”
The NL-NS maritime boundary dispute was only settled three or four years ago.
“You really are a little behind the times. These maps have been issued by the provincial government of Quebec.”
And? How does the federal government prevent this?
“Ever since our Primere has taken office you have done nothing but rake him over the coals with that stinkin aditude of yours. What’s wrong are afraid he’s doing something right for the province. He’s done good so far for our region of Labrador,”
Let’s see: he’s broken his promise to recognize the LMN, broken his promise to keep Labradorians in the loop on the Lower Churchill, broken his promise that Labradorians would be the primary beneficiaries of the Lower Churchill, and broken his promise to follow independent advice on the routing of the Labrador ferry.
Can you name some of the GOOD things he’s done for Labrador?
“Yeah your right, Quebecs maps do reduce Labrador and omit it altogether….you are from Quebec aren’t you?”
No, NEWFOUNDLAND maps frequently reduce Labrador or omit it altogether. Why don’t you find that to be a problem? Have you written the provincial government of the province of which Labrador is a part, to protest that kind of inaccuracy?
“Typical mainlander, omitting the native people again.”
Not at all: as between the French and the English, the French settled before the English. I never said anything about who were living here FIRST!
“As for Newfoundland, our people were here alot longer than the french.”
A lot longer, but who settled FIRST? Who’s “our people"? And has it never occurred to you that some of “our people” may, in fact, be “French"?
“As a matter of fact there’s little presence of french here on the island…thank god.”
Just imagine, if the mayor of some Toronto suburb, said “there’s not that many Newfies in our city, thank god"?
Why is it OK to be bigotted against people of a particular linguistic heritage?
“You speak for the people of Labrador?”
No, but I have a pretty good idea how they would vote in your separatist referendum.
““Labrador was never part of your nation. Newfoundlanders never gave Labradorians their “national” vote.”
You spread propaganda!”
I spread truth: Newfoundland denied the vote to Labrador for over 100 years after they themselves obtained it. The elected Newfoundland government NEVER gave Labrador the vote.
“This issue hasn’t even been discussed yet, again more propaganda on your part”
Danny promised that the Lower Churchill would benefit Labradorians first and foremost. Then he went ahead and called for proposals that do not require Labrador power to be used in Labrador. Danny Williams is a liar.
“Oh by the way WMJ are you the Micheal Johansan that rights the columns in The Telegram and the Downhomer? If so no wonder I discontinued my subscription.”
No, I’m not Michael Johansen, and why do people who are outspoken on Labrador issues bother you so much?
Comment by WJM — 8/17/2005 @ 9:27 am“No, I’m not Michael Johansen, and why do people who are outspoken on Labrador issues bother you so much”
You must be Michael Johansen because you corrected my spelling of your last name.
People with outspoken issues on Labrador doesn’t bother at all. Newfoundland & Labrador has more issues than any other province in this spinless country. If we had hundreds of millions given to us like the sponsorship in Quebec we’d be laughing all the way to the banks to. My problem is when people like yourself coming in from anothrer province spreading your propaganda and B.S. to the people of Labrador to try desparately to sway the minds of the Labradorians form standing with their own province. Your goal is to drive a wedge between the two lands, to soften up the people with your lies and propaganda.
Comment by Frank H — 8/17/2005 @ 4:17 pmOur very own Tom Hickey minister of transportation back in 1972-1973 had the Trans Labrador highway from the TCH right up to Nain signed,sealed and almost delivered. But it was the french liberals in Ottawa that squashed the hole project. IT WAS THE FRENCH THAT DENIED LABRADOR THEIR HIGHWAY IN THE EARLY 70′S.
My goal will be to spread truth to Labrador not like you who spread lies.
“You must be Michael Johansen because you corrected my spelling of your last name.”
That’s impecable logic, but it’s wrong. I’m STILL not Michael Johansen.
“People with outspoken issues on Labrador doesn’t bother at all. Newfoundland & Labrador has more issues than any other province in this spinless country.”
Oh? You’ve counted, have you?
“My problem is when people like yourself coming in from anothrer province”
I’m from Labrador.
“spreading your propaganda and B.S. to the people of Labrador to try desparately to sway the minds of the Labradorians form standing with their own province.”
It’s the minds of Labradorians that swayed me, not the other way around.
“Your goal is to drive a wedge between the two lands,”
That wedge already exists. Newfoundland separatists like you are driving it deeper.
“Our very own Tom Hickey minister of transportation back in 1972-1973 had the Trans Labrador highway from the TCH right up to Nain signed,sealed and almost delivered.”
I’d like to see you come up with any proof that a highway to Nain was ever proposed by the provincial government.
“But it was the french”
Seriously, what do you have against French-speaking people? Are all Newfoundland separatists bigotted like you?
“liberals in Ottawa that squashed the hole project. IT WAS THE FRENCH THAT DENIED LABRADOR THEIR HIGHWAY IN THE EARLY 70′S.”
It was federal Liberal governments, under Rompkey and Trudeau in 1983 and O’Brien and Chrétien in 1997, that put over 90% of the money that’s ever been spent into the Trans-Labrador Highway. Less than 10% of the money that’s EVER been spent on highways in Labrador has come from the provincial government of the province which Labrador is part of.
It was the Conservatives of John Crosbie, Brian Mulroney, Brian Peckford, and Tom Rideout, who, in 1988, signed an 800-million highways deal “for the province", of which only 8-million was allocated to Labrador.
Those are FACTS.
“My goal will be to spread truth to Labrador not like you who spread lies.”
I challenge you to point out one thing I have typed here that is a “lie".
Come one.
Comment by WJM — 8/17/2005 @ 5:16 pmliberals in Ottawa that squashed the hole project. IT WAS THE FRENCH THAT DENIED LABRADOR THEIR HIGHWAY IN THE EARLY 70′S. Just like the French denied Newfoundland & Labrador a power corridor down through Quebec to transmit power from the Upper Churchill, that alone would have made N&L a little less poor today.
“It was the Conservatives of John Crosbie, Brian Mulroney, Brian Peckford, and Tom Rideout, who, in 1988, signed an 800-million highways deal “for the province", of which only 8-million was allocated to Labrador.”
Man you haven’t got a clue. This 800 million highways deal as you call it was actually called “Rails to Roads Agreement” and it was signed,sealed and delivered by Ron Dawe himself who is a Liberal. At least you got the year right. And Mr.Tom Hickey who is a friend of mine tried his hardest in 72 & 73 to try and get the highway for Labrador but like I said before it was the damn Liberals in Ottawa that killed the deal.
Anyhow Micheal Johansen you better brush up on your politics.
Comment by Frank H — 8/17/2005 @ 6:37 pmFrank,
I was going to let the first one go - but you couldn’t…
Please give up on your bigoted comments. Just in case you are unfamiliar with the word bigot, I have provided definitions from dictionary.com
big·ot n.
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
bigot n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
You, sir, are getting close to spreading hate and that is not the purpose of this site. If you continue I will be forced to contact Kevin if he’s been too busy to keep up with recent posts. He will no doubt feel obligated to remove your access if you continue to slam ANYBODY without being respectful to everyone in accordance with the Charter of Rights. (Common decency to all humans, which should not be an issue here!)
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html
However, neither law abiding Canadians, mainlanders, nor Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will tolerate illegal forms of freedom of speech.
Lastly, WJM is NOT Micheal Johansen. Try reading this entire forum from start to finish. Not only will you find out who WJM is, you will also recognize that you are the only one getting close to spreading hate.
Fred from CBS
PS I don’t like most of what WJM says or the spin he puts on it either but he usually has facts to back up what he says. All you’ve put forth is urban legend and here say. If you got facts and websites, bring’em on, I’m all for rubbing WJM’s nose it…
Comment by Fred Harris — 8/17/2005 @ 8:05 pm“liberals in Ottawa that squashed the hole project. IT WAS THE FRENCH THAT DENIED LABRADOR THEIR HIGHWAY IN THE EARLY 70′S.”
French people live in France. What do the French have to do with Labrador highways?
Get a clue: It’s been federal governments, and Liberal ones, with francophone leaders at that, who have funded 90% of the TLH to date.
““It was the Conservatives of John Crosbie, Brian Mulroney, Brian Peckford, and Tom Rideout, who, in 1988, signed an 800-million highways deal “for the province", of which only 8-million was allocated to Labrador.”
Man you haven’t got a clue. This 800 million highways deal as you call it was actually called “Rails to Roads Agreement””
It was called the “Rails to Roads Agreement", because in their zeal to get elected, federal and provincial Conservatives ignored their own policy advice and struck a highways deal without any meaningful money for Labrador, and justified it with the railway closure. The Sullivan Commission specifically advised Crosbie and Peckford to include the TLH in any future fed-prov highways deal. But there weren’t enough Conservative votes to be had in Labrador, so the Tories shafted us.
“and it was signed,sealed and delivered by Ron Dawe himself who is a Liberal. At least you got the year right. And Mr.Tom Hickey who is a friend of mine tried his hardest in 72 & 73 to try and get the highway for Labrador but like I said before it was the damn Liberals in Ottawa that killed the deal.”
How did Liberals in Ottawa prevent Frank Moores’ Conservative government from spending provincial money on highways in Labrador?
“Anyhow Micheal Johansen you better brush up on your politics.”
I’m not Michael Johansen. You had better brush up on your manners.
Comment by WJM — 8/17/2005 @ 10:01 pm“You, sir, are getting close to spreading hate and that is not the purpose of this site.”
Getting close? Yikes! I’d hate to see the real thing!
“PS I don’t like most of what WJM says or the spin he puts on it either but he usually has facts to back up what he says. All you’ve put forth is urban legend and here say. If you got facts and websites, bring’em on, I’m all for rubbing WJM’s nose it”
Awww… that’s sweet! Love you too!
Comment by WJM — 8/17/2005 @ 10:02 pmWOW!!! you two are getting a little to serious for me, ya got to learn to relax, it’s just a little entertainment.
What’s wrong fred can’t handle the truth. There’s plenty Newfoundlanders that are bitter with Ontario & Quebec, it’s a fact of life since 1949……..
Comment by Frank H — 8/18/2005 @ 1:32 am“What’s wrong fred can’t handle the truth. There’s plenty Newfoundlanders that are bitter with Ontario & Quebec, it’s a fact of life since 1949″
It’s a fact of life since before 1949. Look at history. Newfoundlanders, especially nationalist Newfoundlanders, have always needed to construct themselves an enemy to hate.
Comment by WJM — 8/18/2005 @ 2:27 pmFred sends to WJM,
You, sir, are perilously close to the unfair categorization of a group yourself. The rules go both ways.
Encouraging Frank to hate bigotry and to discourage blanket statements of any group of people would be more productive than coming back with an, “Oh yeah, well…”
Plus, you should know better than to bait or provoke people!
Fred sends to Frank H.,
Ain’t nudding entertaining to me about bigotry. It has no place in debate, or our society…
…and don’t give me any freedom of association clauses either.
“Intolerantly yours,”
Fred from CBS
PS Just play fair, like in the title of the URL…?
Comment by Fred Harris — 8/18/2005 @ 3:21 pm“You, sir, are perilously close to the unfair categorization of a group yourself.”
Which group?
Comment by WJM — 8/18/2005 @ 4:26 pmAny group, you egotisical-wet-fart-of-an-old-fart-has-been-stupid-fekkin’-waste-of-time-ol’-fart!
I CAN’T believe that you would try to diminish the import of what I just posted! You, sir, are a moron and I give up trying to mediate reality for you. Your weak attempts to create unsubstantial positions designed to separate our country are definitely noted. Our resolve as a country is more impressive!
I was respectful of your points but you have demonstrated ABSOLUTELY NO clout thanks to your last offensive and ignorant post! I thought you understood but you are an idiot and you just lost your right to my politeness.
YOU, SIR, R A FOOL!
Frank H. may be uneducated and mal-informed but yer an idiot who CHOOSES to be a moron without any ree-straints! To think that a man as educated as you could be so trite…
Go stuff yourself, you self-serving unpatriotic BIGOT! The only response you have the right to after this, is, “I’m sorry for not getting it the first time".
For myself, I can’t believe that you WJM, as a leader of free thinking people, would have the gall to speak so rudely to our population!
Grow up you disrespectfully old man!
Good bye
GROW UP!
FRED from CBS
SEMANTIC THAT SHI’THEAD!
Comment by Fred Harris — 8/19/2005 @ 12:48 amGet a grip
Comment by Fred Harris — 8/19/2005 @ 12:52 am“It’s a fact of life since before 1949. Look at history. Newfoundlanders, especially nationalist Newfoundlanders, have always needed to construct themselves an enemy to hate.”
Construct an enemy to hate? We Newfoundlanders & Labradorians have constructed an enemy to hate? You see it’s comments like this that leads me to believe that your not a Newfoundlander nor a Labradorian. You sound like a Margret Wente. Your mouth rambles on while your head is in the clouds!!!
WMJ you try desparately to paint a picture of hatred for us Newfoundlanders towards Labrador and it’s people. You may know something of our stinkin governments we’ve had in the past but it’s obvious you know very little of Newfoundland and it’s people and the admiration that exist in Newfoundlanders for the Labradorians.
You WMJ are using this web site to spread your hatred and propaganda through out Labrador and it’s people.
Comment by Frank H — 8/19/2005 @ 1:03 amWell cherry’O gents (WMJ & Fred) you two been goin at it for far to long for me.
I may read but I shall not comment.
Comment by Frank H — 8/19/2005 @ 1:13 am““It’s a fact of life since before 1949. Look at history. Newfoundlanders, especially nationalist Newfoundlanders, have always needed to construct themselves an enemy to hate.”
Construct an enemy to hate? We Newfoundlanders & Labradorians have constructed an enemy to hate?”
No, just Newfoundlanders. Labrador didn’t have any place in the political process pre-Confederation.
Go back into history. Newfoundland political discourse has always revolved around “us vs. them", whether the “them” are the French (French shore controversy), Americans (Fortune Bay incident), Quebec (boundary dispute), the other BNA colonies and later provinces of Canada (fisheries, customs disputes)…
“You see it’s comments like this that leads me to believe that your not a Newfoundlander nor a Labradorian.”
I’m not a Newfoundlander at all. I am a Labradorian.
“WMJ you try desparately to paint a picture of hatred for us Newfoundlanders towards Labrador and it’s people.”
Hatred? Try neglect, hypocrisy, financial abuse of resources, colonialist behaviour, but where have I said Newfoundlanders “hate” Labrador? that’s in your imagination.
“you know very little of Newfoundland and it’s people and the admiration that exist in Newfoundlanders for the Labradorians.”
Newfoundlanders tend to admire Labrador to the extent that there’s a resource to be sucked out of the region.
Where’s your “admiration” when it comes time to allocate the highways budget?
Comment by WJM — 8/19/2005 @ 8:50 am“Go stuff yourself, you self-serving unpatriotic BIGOT!”
I am extremely patriotic. Le Canada, mon pays, le Labrador, ma patrie!
Comment by WJM — 8/19/2005 @ 8:51 amThanks Frank, I think I will take your advice and bid “au revoir Monsieur WJM".
And “hello” to all patriotic Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Comment by Anne — 9/20/2005 @ 2:50 pmI think you all need to grow up. I have just spent the last little while reading these comments. In my opinion, you all, (mostly three of you) should exchange emails, so the rest of us don’t have to see how some people think they know it all, namely Fred. And to you sir, i think you should be a professor at MUN, or represent us in Ottawa, because from the comments posted over the last several months- You can certainly give a speech!!
Comment by Oh My — 11/7/2005 @ 1:57 pm